p.s. separation of church and state
If that’s your point, then all marriage should be dissolved, including heterosexual marriage. And marriage is religion specific. Contracts are what are not religion-specific. So if the state dissolves their ties with marriage and leaves it up to the church, then no gay person would ever get married. Because it’s not biblically correct.Sigh. Marriage is not a relgious institution. It is a civil one. Every single person in America is married because the STATE gave them a license. My husband and I were married by a magistrate judge. Our marriage has EXACTLY the same legal weight as that of a couple who was married by a pastor in a church. The STATE gives you the rights and privileges of marriage, not the church. Therefore, the STATE should not not prevent consenting adults from receiving a marriage license based on religious reasons. If there are legal reasons to keep gays from marrying, fine. I’d like to hear them. But religious reasons should have no place in this debate. Personal religious beliefs should not be the sole justification for the law, ever.
We weren’t talking about contracts. Marriage was created by the Church thousands of years ago. Modern society created the “legal contract.”
Read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09699a.htm
Ooh, I really hate reblogging myself. And I hate getting sucked into arguments. But your comments didn’t work for me, and I want to clarify, so I’ll make an exception.
I’ll also make a confession. I did not read your link. Well, I read the first sentence, but I’m not Catholic, and so I really don’t care how they define marriage. I grew up as a member of a very conservative religion (and I still am, by the way), but I try not to let my personal feelings and beliefs influence how I view the law. I’m married, and straight, and quite honestly, I don’t know a single gay person (weird, huh).
Believe it or not, I do understand what you’re saying. The idea of two people living their lives together, monogamously, to have children and support each other definitely comes from the Bible. God did create Eve to be a helpmeet for Adam (and, might I point out, look how well THAT turned out). However, I do think there’s some confusion over the terminology now. The government has coopted the word “marriage”, and given it a legal definition. Marriage, as the word is used now, is defined by a set of rights and privileges you receive upon filling out a marriage license, paying a fee and sometimes waiting a certain amount of time. That license is given legal force by a delegate of the state. That delegate can be a judge, or a magistrate, or a ship’s captain, or an ordained minister/priest, or even a notary public. It isn’t actually a contract, it’s a license. But in order for you to receive the legal benefits of marriage, you must have the state recognize your marriage. Now, I could go to a church, and have a pastor perform a moving ceremony, in front of my friends and family, and it would be the most beautiful day of my life. It would be deeply meaningful to me, and my husband, and I would probably shed a quite a few tears of joy and love while reading my vows. But without signing the state’s marriage license, my marriage has no legal weight, and I would have no legal status as a wife. No right to inherit from him, in case of death, share his medical insurance, file a joint tax return, etc., etc., etc. The relgious ceremony is only a symbol of my commitment to my husband, and public acknowledgement of our relationship.
I believe very strongly in marriage, and I believe that whether or not my husband and I had signed that little piece of paper, I will still be married to him (monogamously) for the rest of my life. And that thrills me. No piece of paper changes my personal relationship with him, and no piece of paper should change the depth of feeling two people have for each other. But the state says that in order for IT to recognize my relationship with my husband, I have to sign the license.
Therefore, I believe that a gay couple should have the same right to be granted a marriage license as any heterosexual couple. They should have the same legal rights as any heterosexual couple. I make no arguments as to their right to a religious ceremony. That should be between them and their church. I believe any church has the right to refuse to marry any couple. I do not believe the state should have the right to deny a marriage license to two people who, but for their gender, would otherwise be qualified to get married. Let me repeat. Two consenting, non-related adults should be allowed to get a marriage license and enter into a legally binding marriage, as defined by the state.
So back to that first line. I vehemently disagree. The content of my marriage is between me and my husband and God, and frankly, none of your business. But in this country, legally, marriage is not above the law. Marriage is part of the law. As such, it should be subject to the standards of equal rights.
Now, I’m going to go back to watching Castle.
Well, you see, I only read the first line of this post, that said you didn’t read the link, so you just wasted time writing it. And Castle is for retards. Suck a dick, bitch.
lol..how grown up. suck a dick?? I was really into the whole debate till I realized one of you was a fucking retard.